Hey everyone. This is a little follow up on the rules debate I mentioned in my recent post. They are changing the rules/program to follow what I describe here, different from the way it works now. I'm sure there is a rules section to somewhere to get a fuller scoop but here's the main stuff:

The Rule: The attacker ALWAYS chooses to withdraw or press the attack BEFORE subs choose whether or not to submerge in the combat sequence.

Example: In Round 1, Germany moves the baltic fleet to 7 and UK attacks that fleet with all available units; the battle is 2 transports, battleship, 2 fighters, bomber, VS 2 subs, destroyer, and transport. After one round of combat the destroyer and transport have died and the battleship has taken damage. The attacker may choose to withdraw at this time to sz 8 or press the attack, thus exposing itself to submarine fire if the defender chooses to remain. What CANNOT occur is that the submarine first submerges and the attacker is forced to remain in sea zone 7. The attacker goes first.

Where is this rule written: Page 16 is the key page. Page 32 also mentions the subject.

Argument/Explanation/Interpretation of rulebook:

At the end of step 6 of the combat sequence in round 1 of the combat above neither side has been destroyed. Therefore, we proceed to the withdraw or repeat options specified in step 7. The thrust of this section is to describe the attacker's ability to retreat, but it also states this is the time when submarines submerge. The attacker can withdraw and attacking and defending subs can submerge all in the same step - There's no right of way specified for anyone. In practice someone needs to decide first, but they are not symmetric.

If the sub had to choose first, but the attacker could still retreat, that would not be simultaneous since the attacker would benefit from the information. (In the example above, the attacker may be worried about losing a boat. Knowing if the subs will stay or not could influence the decision to continue on to sz7.) If the sub chooses first and submerges forcing a forward movement (since the defender is therefore vanquished and withdrawal is not allowed), that is not simultaneous and denies the ability to withdraw.

On the other hand, if the attacker chooses first it will be simultaneous -- neither side benefits from advance information. Specifically, if the attacker chooses first and chooses to withdraw, the submarine has no decision to make - that's the key. The only question facing the submarine is "what do I do if the attack is pressed?" Answering that question after it is indeed pressed gives no profit to the sub; neither side is using advance knowledge of the opponent's thinking to further their cause.

This rendering of the rules is "simultaneous", but subs first is not. This rendering preserves the ability of the attacker to withdraw and for submarines to submerge. These are both consistent with the rules sdescribed on page 16, but subs first would be neither simultaneous nor preserving, and is therefore not consistent.

Additional thoughts:

I think it goes against the "feeling" of the game to give the defender the ability to force an action by the attacker by choice; the attacker is supposed to have the initiative.

It has been argued that page 32 of the rulebook implies subs should go first. I think the phrase "regardless of what other units do" supports our interpretation as the sub makes this decision not in isolation (first) but in consideration of the attacker's selection to withdraw or press their units.

Regarding page 32, the rule book explicitly states that step 7 is when subs submerge on page 16. So when it says "after the attacker and defender have fired" on page 32, that cannot mean it occurs before step 7. Step 7 does occur generically after the attacker and defender. In this sense, page 32 does not distinguish between attacker withdrawal and sub withdrawal - they both occur after the attacker and defender have fired - and specifically, they occur in step 7. Basically, the statements on page 16 imply something stronger than the statement on page 32 - namely that not only is it after the firing, but specifically in step 7. So you can actually just ignore 32 and try to decipher 16.

@valter Thanks! Yeah, if I had been able to withdraw I would place the carrier in 8, and then I can jump start 2 USA fighters. Generically, it's not a bad thing to consider when targeting the German med fleet early, especially if USA can put a bomber into arch or yakut round 1 and the German med sub is not there. In this game the bomber had nowhere to go, and I got stuck in 7, so hitting the med fleet early with USA wasn't in the cards. But if I had gone to 8, I also would have been able to put 2 UK figs into Africa, which would have prevented further drops into egypt/ allowed a round 2 UK hit on Germany fleet.

This was only a few turns but I put considerable time into it. The highlight of the action is in Egypt, where I invested heavily to leverage Bayder's light Africa bid placement. The fatal attack depended on luck to be fatal, but the downside was low, and I probably would have been happy to plow all my forces into Egypt or India fleet in any case.

There was a rules conflict and substantial debate in round 1 regarding UKs attack in 7. The issue was, could Bayder submerge his subs and deny my ability to retreat, or did I have the ability to retreat before the subs acted. I thought the latter, he the former. Prastle ruled in his favor and that's how the game was played, which slowed my planes' Africa action down and forced an awkward dd move. In theory, it could have sunk my fleet. A day later, Prastle had dove deeper and realized my position was correct, but too late. In future, the engine will be modified to better reflect the rules, by switching the action order of attacker and defending subs. I'll post the arguments related to that in the appropriate forum spot later and link it here.

The game was short, but the gist was that Russia spent the whole game in full retreat except in persia, Germany had total domination of Eastern Europe and was playing catch up in Africa, UK played air heavily, Japan played fairly traditionally but was hampered I think unexpectedly by UK Indian ocean action, and USA was pure transports and land units. The game didn't feel over at all before the Anglo attack scenario developed; but with the die I threw on that attack, I could stay and triple hit egypt. IPC exchange would have actually been minimal, but with no J air, stilted J movement with UK air coverage, and Germ fleet gone Axis would be behind the clock with little tactical maneuverability, and I don't think a Hail Mary Russia blitz was in the cards.

Good games Bayder. I'm sure our battle will continue into future tourneys!

Having won the tourney, I want to give an honorable mention to Barca, who might well have beaten me (maybe!) in the game he resigned for time. I never got back to him to finish it though we both were interested - just too much axis time already committed. Maybe it will still be finsihed... But it also sticks out to me because I was rusty going into that game and it was a grindstone, which set me up for the rest of the tourney.

This game was a good one. There was very detailed play I would say, with few tactical mistakes by anyone, but there were some. I found Bayder to be a tactical player overall, with lots of precision-tactics traps laid about, which means I had to play my moves to the last detail and be careful, or the mistake would be seized upon.

The game opened with UK throwing the works at Japan as best they could, with a general KGF format. Bayder was bitterly disappointed with his opening dice Russia1, which were the worst possible for the move he made. Things progressed in somewhat typical fashion for a med-focused USA allied KGF, with Japan lagging a bit behind the clock from UKs successful R1 blitz, and Germany ahead. Early Japanese play included an IC in EI, lots of fighters and a focus on Africa, with light Asian ground forces. Early German play was economic. I'd say UK play was marked by a focus on air power and USSR by tactical pressure on Japan. Things started to move away from both sides stacking near Egypt when USA attacked Southern Europe in round 4, and changed dramatically by round 6. There were also some interesting Eastern European dynamics around this period, but you wouldn't know it at first sight from the moves that ended up being played.

In round 6 the main of the axis navy moved into the Mediterranean, which gummed up the allied naval strategy of that moment. The allied response was even more dramatic than those naval moves, as USA chose to sail all the way around the map to East Indies and initiate a species of KJF. Bayder claimed he planned a KJF from the outset anyway. However, this was quite a surprise to me. In the end it proved to be a surprisingly strong course of action. Of course it did leave the Atlantic at the mercy of the Axis and I very nearly switched into Sea Lion mode (using Japanese transports to boost a German assault). Without thinking too hard though, my intuition was that I was winning and it wasn't necessary to get fancy - I decided to focus on Russia for offense and use the navy for defense and began moving the axis navy to meet the USA in the Pacific to slow things down. Bayder said he calculated UK could have been captured, so there might have been a missed opportunity there, I'm not sure. Even so, factoring in what might have transpired in Japan the better move is undecided for me at the moment.

The final part of the game was a race for Germany to take Russia while Axis were fending off the dynamic tactical assault of the US navy near ei, be it on africa or in the pacific. Allies steadily gained overall strategic ground in this period as Japanese relevance shrank, Africa broke free, and TUV went from equal to ~150+ Allies, but it couldn't save Russia, and Bayder chose to resign the game once Moscow's fate was sealed and there were no VC snipe opportunities on the board. GG bayder.

Art thou not sorry for these heinous deeds?
Ay, that I had not done a thousand more.

LouisXIVXIV (Axis,8) defeats Panpal by resignation after 13 rounds of live play with breaks.

Panpal is a very good player and this was a fun and very good game. It's attached below. We had taken about a two week break so I don't have the full scope of the game in my mind, but it was interesting all the way to the end. My feeling was that Panpal had an opening somewhere in the early rounds maybe 3,4,or 5 to seize upon the game, but played more cautiously in those rounds, and it gave him a pretty stiff situation for the game's remainder. Not sure exactly, but I remember thinking something like that - I didn't take any chances either way though!

LouisXIVXIV (Axis,8) defeats Epinikion by resignation after 11 rounds of live play in I think 4 sessions.

I was sharp and practiced after the 32 days of trench warfare with Barca, and had heard Epi is very good. So I was prepared for a focused game. Then there was the ongoing hail of wonderful axis dice. In combination these things proved lethal to the very skilled play of the allied powers.

Epi played a great game, he's a great sport and very friendly. Good luck in the tourney Epi. Looking forward to our next game.

LouisXIVXIV (Axis,8) will progress as winner in a match against Barca, after 20 rounds. This game was a near-tie when it ended, perhaps with Barca in the lead, but he chose to resign to avoid playing a more hurried game over the next two weeks to meet the deadline. (If we get a surprise giant extension from Deltium, we may fight on.)

Barca's allied play style was economic and conservative. IPC advantage was his priority at all times. For land units he almost always bought infantry. He was frequently moving guys back and forth to squeeze a few extra territorial ipcs for a turn or so. There were no obvious short-term tactical mistakes. He played both powers simultaneously (no KG or KJ) and would sometimes feint an attack against one or the other. He opened with a pseudo KJF. He bought complexes in India and Egypt. He was holding Africa against Japan by purely naval means in sz 34. In round 20 the UK had 6 ACs there.

In round 20 Allies has abotu a 20+ipc/round advantage and a TUV adv of ~340 counting from the start of round 21.

I believe there were two important weak points in the allied position: REDACTED. Barca and I may finish the game later so I can't spill the beans.

I felt I made some errors very early esp regarding Africa, the German med navy, and Japanese moves thereabouts, though Barca's play there was excellent. Here is the game file: 0_1541377778778_LouisXIVXIV_Barca_1R_21.tsvg

LouisXIVXIV (Axis, 8 ) defeats Valter (Allies). The game was played in 3-4 live sittings and lasted to G6, whereat Valter threw in the towel. I think it was a reasonable assessment; the board didn't have particularly exciting features, but German and Japanese income was quite healthy, Russia had few units, and Allies were a bit boxed out. My strategy for the next few rounds would have been very straightforward - G builds and begins to move on russia; J keeps USA at bay while pushing stacks on russia, and there wasn't any clear way to stop that simple march by that point in the game. The last straw came after Russia had some bad luck in light trading in Ukraine, leaving a relatively undefended Caucasus open for capture. GG Valter and good luck in the rest of the tourney.

:). I don't know if what I'm about to add has any value since I'm not quoting the rule book but ... I just wanted to add regarding the NC move - it's intuitive that aa wouldn't fire during noncombat. Countries are gigantic geographically so you'd expect a general fly over to be able to avoid aa protected sites, which should be few and far between. They are protecting targets, where they are unavoidable when attacking the target. If you were in retreat, you could argue things went wrong and you didn't have control over your NC flight path, hence aa firing.